Spellcasting Prodigy - Whats the beef?

[Oni]

Oni: I whole heartedly disagree that it is too easy to save vs. spells. It is quite easy to design reasonable PC or NPC spell casters whose 9th level spells would have save DC's of 30+. An extreme case might be 18 in prime attribute, raised to 23 by attribute advancement, raised to 28 by inherent bonuses (via wish), raised to 34 via enhancement bonuses (via an item), plus Spell Casting Prodigy, Spell Focus, and Greater Spell Focus. This gives a save DC vs. 9th level spells (in one school) of 36. Supposing this is a save or die spell, if you have less than a +16 Fort bonus, you die on anything but a natural 20. If you have less than a +26 Fort bonus, you are likely to die. Supposing this is an enchantment, if you have less than a +16 Will bonus, then you are my slave. If this spell is a save or die or mass save or die spell (like Wail of the Banshee or Weird) or a potent enchantment (like a Heightened Dominate Person or even a Heightened Chain Dominate Person), then its likely to be curtains for just about any group (PC or NPC) that isn't prepared.

Now take Spellcasting Prodigy out of the picture, we've just reduced the DC by one whole point, see the difference? Well I don't see much of a difference Spellcasting Prodigy hardly seems to be the game breaker here, and as far as I can tell it really matters little if you take it or not. You would be better off scraping it and going for Skillfocus: spellcraft, and head toward the archmage Prc if you really into high save DC's, of course you could do both, but then your back to the fact that its only a difference of one point, 5% difference on the roll of a d20, and a wizard can only obtain a limited number of feats, why rob yourself of a metamagic feat, or item creation feat over a measily 5%. I guess what I'm failing to understand is why it is so essential that every spellcaster take it at first level (and thus why it is broken since this seems to be the reason everyone keeps citing).

 

[Celebrim]

Oni: Let's just clarify something. Did I say Spell Casting Prodigy was a game breaker? I think I said: "I think it is only a no brainer for Human spellcasters, and maybe not even then." So it's not like I'm calling this the be all end all of spellcaster feat selection.

But it is a darn good feat.

One feat gives you at least one and likely two additional spells per day, AND increases the DC of all your spells regardless of school by 1. I think I'll buy that for a dollar. What else am I going to buy?

Well, there are a couple of good Item Creation feats, but unless my DM is particularly stingy with magic, I probably only need Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand. That's two feats, one of which I get for free as a wizard. If I was really in to artificing I might get Craft Wondrous Item, just because it is so general purpose. However, I'd not go over board here in anything but an ultra-low magic campaign.

And there are a couple of good Metamagic feats, but again I'd not go overboard here before Epic Levels make Metamagic more fun. Empower is good, but I can do the same thing in most cases by just taking a higher level spell with similar function. Quicken can get you out of a jam, but you probably won't be carrying more than one or two quickened spells because Quicken eats up your best spells. If you are a Cleric, you'll probably be happy with Extend and Persistant and thats it. If I'm a sorcerer, I'm going to live without Metamagic. I've got too few feats to waste on it. If I'm a wizard, I'll might take Heighten if I'm an Enchanter, Empower if I'm into Evocation, and everybody is going to want some combination of Quicken, Extend, Persistant, Still, and Silent. At some point you might want Twin, Widen, or Chain.

But again, I wouldn't go overboard. In a given list of spells, you probably only are carrying one or two that is metamagiced with a given feat. And no matter how many metamagic feats you have (even if you have all of them) you aren't going to apply them but to a small percentage of the total spells you can cast. So, Persistant Spell for clerics aside, they have quite low actual utility in my experience. If you have more than three or four, you probably have too many.

For a wizard, that leaves me 5-8 feats that I'm going to spend on making sure that my spells work: Combat Casting, Spell Casting Prodigy, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Improved Initiative, and so forth. Skill Focus (Spellcraft) I can wait on until its needed. It won't help me all that much until it is a prequisite for something. Ditto to Persistant Spell, since it won't help me before 9th level and I have two chances (at 3rd and 6th) to take Extend Spell (which won't help me at all at 1st).

I just don't understand why you are obsessed with the 'just 5%' aspect of +1. Isn't Weapon Focus, 'just 5%'? Isn't Masterwork, 'just 5%'? Isn't each +1 enhancement bonus, 'just 5%'? Isn't min/maxing about squeezing the rules till they yield you that extra 5%? If my 'just 5%' turns the difficult of my saving throw from 'needs to roll a 19 or better' to 'needs to roll a 20 or better', I'm going to half the number of critters that make thier saves and similar (though less extreme) logic applies whenever I've squeezed hard enough that the save DC's against my spells are relatively high compared to the average saving throw bonus of critters I'm likely to face at my level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Lets look at this in an objective fashion. We'll compare the feat with other feats that noone really has a problem with: Extra spell slot, and spell focus.

The bonus spell slot of casting prodigy is superior in almost every way to the extra spell slot feat. The slot given is for a higher level, and advances as your casting stat increases. The only way in which extra spell slot might be superior is where the spell slots from casting prodigy are above the level you can cast - essentially this is the equivalent of not taking extra spell slot until a higher level.

The bonus to DCs is (IMHO) superior to spell focus, unless you only intend on using one school of spells, or intend to use spell focus it as a prereq. As soon as you have two schools of spells that you split casting between, spell focus is only providing an average of +1 to DCs, and this falls further as you take more schools.

Simply put - people complain about casting prodigy because it is superior to most other feats out there.

 

[Oni]

First off I would like to apologise to you, Celebrim, it was not my intention to come across so argumentatively, and I certainly wasn't trying to single you out or anything. And I certianly never intended to put words in your mouth, I know that didn't say it was a gamebreaker.


Some people have cited the fact that a lot of people claim it as a must have feat to be the reason that it is broken. I simply felt that your post was an excellent example of why this was not necessarily the case.


I guess in regards to metamagic feats and item creation feats I just have a different style of play, I really do regard them to be one of the most important things in a casters arsenal. Item creation feats especially so for wizards, and metamagic feats especially important to sorcerers. I have a tendency to try to avoid save or die spells.


I do hold to my assertions about just 5%. Master work weapons, great if you find one, or have extra gold, but I wouldn't put myself out to obtain one. I really don't like weapon focus, and would not think it worth the trouble at all if it were not for weapon specialization. Magic weapons are a little different story as plusses to weapons have utility beyond simple percentage chance to hit, not only adding to the damage you deal, but also giving you away around damage reduction.


Anyway I don't want to turn this thread into an overheated argument or anything. I guess our difference in play style should be telling enough toward the argument that Spellcasting Prodigy is broken because it is a "must have" feat

 

[Numion]

I kept hearing rants along the lines of "the feat is broken because there is no logical reason a player wouldn't choose it!"

Irons Rations are broken, because every character has them!

 

[Hammerhead]

Lets look at this in an objective fashion. We'll compare the feat with other feats that noone really has a problem with: Extra spell slot, and spell focus.

The bonus spell slot of casting prodigy is superior in almost every way to the extra spell slot feat. The slot given is for a higher level, and advances as your casting stat increases. The only way in which extra spell slot might be superior is where the spell slots from casting prodigy are above the level you can cast - essentially this is the equivalent of not taking extra spell slot until a higher level.

The bonus to DCs is (IMHO) superior to spell focus, unless you only intend on using one school of spells, or intend to use spell focus it as a prereq. As soon as you have two schools of spells that you split casting between, spell focus is only providing an average of +1 to DCs, and this falls further as you take more schools.

Simply put - people complain about casting prodigy because it is superior to most other feats out there.

Actually, it doesn't matter how many schools the wizard schools. It only matters how many attack spells that require saves that are in different schools. For example, the mage who uses Fly, Haste, Invisibility, Scrying, Enervation, Stoneskin, Magic Missile, Acid Arrow, and Charm Monster only needs Spell Focus: Enchantment, despite his use of just about every school of magic. More focused characters will benefit even more from spell focus. The enchanter with every enchantment spell in the book will obviously favor Spell focus, as might the Transmuter who relies on Slows, Polymorphs, and Disentegrates, in additional to his buffing tranmutations. Most of the mages I've seen would benefit more from a Spell Focus (usually Evocation) in terms of save DCs simply because most of their bread and butter attack spells that need saves come from only one school.

Aside from Spell Focus, however, there really aren't that many feats that a 1st level wizard might want. You can't use metamagic effectively, so you might as well wait till later unless you absolutely need it now. Most item creation feats can't be taken at first level. Common low level enemies don't have SR, so Spell Penetration can also be put off. Spell focus, Improved Initiative, and Spell Casting Prodigy are useful now, and will be useful later on as well. Therefore, the cost of taking SCP is very low.

Of course, I banned SCP, the Greater Spell focus feats, and some other things in my game to prevent save DC inflation. Otherwise, a wizard built in a certain way could toss out save or die type effects that will defeat most characters 95% of the time. Each feat or ability is only a few percent, but when a character has all of them, those 5%s add up quickly.

 

[Numion]

The bonus spell from Spellcasting Prodigy kicks in at higher levels only, since most spellcasters would've had bonus spells of levels 1-4 anyway. The secondary bonus spells (meaning second and third bonus spells for each level) aren't that big of a deal.

Some of my players have used it, and I've had no trouble with it. But then again, if I played a spellcaster, I'd get it too

 

[I'm A Banana]

Spellcasting prodigy is in the same category as Spellfire Wielder, basically....

E.G.: A darn good feat that isn't nessecarily a game breaker but is DARN good.

I would Rule Zero it so that it granted a bonus to your stat for either DC's OR spells per day, not both. It'd stack with something like Extra Spell or Spell Focus.

+2 to one school vs. +1 to all...
+2 to one skill vs. +1 to all...
+2 to one weapon vs. +1 to all...

There is a difference. It's not game-breaking, but it is potent.

Just like I Rule Zeroed Spellfire Wielder to only affect spells that specifically target you, and only if you've readied the action to absorb it. Also, you gotta make a level check.

Still a decent feat, but not one that makes others pale in comparison.

Spellcasting Prodigy won't destroy your game. Neither will Spellfire Wielder. But they are potent, more potent than comprable feats in the PHB. That's what makes them unbalanced...they're more potent than PHB feats. They're better. They do more.

There's a few in FR like that. Most of them can be weakend a bit here and there with some creative house rules. Most of them are still worth taking...just maybe about as worth taking as Improved Initiative, and not more appealing.

I've got no large beef with it...it wouldn't utterly destroy a game or anything to allow it, and there's still sometimes a better feat to take, depending on where you feel the most threatened. But it is a feat that, IMHO, is a bit *too* good, and I'll rule zero it so it's not as good anymore.

 

[Gez]

I've seen more characters with Improved Initiative than ones with SCP.

I've seen more characters with Power Attack than ones with SCP.

Heck, I've even seen more characters with Skill Focus than ones with SCP !

SCP is useful if you want to minmax your save DC or get a few bonus spells per day (up to one bonus spell each four spell levels: for example, 1, 5, 9, depending on your base Int score).

But frankly, otherwise, it sucks.

I've yet to see a prestige class that requires it, for example.

Another tidbit is that this spell is itsn't that great for multiclassed spellcasters, as it boosts your Int, Cha, or Wis only for one class. This means that a bard/sorcerer will only benefit of his heightened Cha for one of his class spells. A ranger/druid/cleric/paladin (what alignment problem ? ) will likewise only benefit of a heightened Wis for, say, his cleric spells. (Not a much important point, however: multiclassed spellcasters sucks.)

Just like I Rule Zeroed Spellfire Wielder to only affect spells that specifically target you, and only if you've readied the action to absorb it.

That AINT'T a rule-0 ! That's the standard rule !

 

[Vanye]

Day late and a gold short, ie someone beat me to it.